Proposal talk:Key:natural protection
Ich würde die Werte kürzen:
Values
| Key | Value | Element | Comment | Rendering | Photo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| natural_protection | monument |   
|
A single nature object like a tree, a small lake or a very small area that is valuable. | ||
| natural_protection | area |
|
An area where human activity is very restricted | ||
| natural_protection | landscape |
|
An area where human activity is restricted, but less than natural protection area | ||
| natural_protection | water |
|
An area where human activity that can endanger water ressources is prohibited |
Begründung:
- natural_protection=Monument - offensichtlich ist das "Monument" naturbezogen, Redundanz unnötig
- natural_protection=area - "area" ist auf natural_protection bezogen, Redundanz unnötig
- natural_protection=landscape - "landscape" ist immer mehr als nur ein Punkt, also logischerweise ein Gebiet, "area" muss nicht zusätzöich erwähnt werden. Wenn nicht weitere landscape-Werte benutzt werden, kann man das "conservation weglassen. Ich kenne die verschiedenen Schutzgrade nicht, man sollte evtl landscape_bisschen_gechützt, landscape_mehr_geschützt und landscape_total_geschützt definieren, möglichst mit maximal zwei Worten
- Die Ausführungen zu landscape gelten ebenso für "water".
Request for additional key "zone" (or similarly)
In Germany a water protection area is divided in different zones with the values I, II and III (for 1 up to 3). Sometimes, zone III is further divided in IIIa and IIIb. In the zones, different restrictions are defined. -- Okilimu
Please specify
Please, specify what means that "An area where human activity is very restricted". Can the humans construct houses? What types of activity is allowed? I'm missing something like:
natural_protection:allow=construction for allowing construction for example and
natural_protection:disallow=construction for not allowing construction.
The same for haunting...
For the other hand, I miss a field like official_type for differentiate different types of natural protection that is defined legally. For example, see this (in catalan) (use google translate) for defining ANEI as a type of natural protection area in Balearic Island, in Spain. So, I suggest to add a tags like:
natural_protection:official_type=ANEI
natural_protection:operator=Govern de les Illes Balears --> the organization competent for declaring one area of protection.
natural_protection:jurisdiction=Illes Balears--> the zone in which the legal classication is valid. In my example, the ANEI type of protection is only defined in Balearic Island, and not for other regions of Spain which have different legal types of protection,
Regards,
--Xan 19:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
New proposal
Hi,
I study your proposal and I think it's too much specific. I want to make an alternative proposal:
| Tag | Value | Mean |
|---|---|---|
| natural_protection | yes/no | Means if there is a protection over an area. (for example a landuse=wood). This is the main value. The default is no. |
| type | natural_reserve, landscape_reserve, national_park, user_defined. | The type of the natural protection that there is in this area: natural park, etc. The importance of user_defined is very high because natural_protection is contry-specific (there are much types of natural protection types in Spain that there aren't in UK and inversely). |
| allow:tag | yes/no | allow activity in the area which tag defines |
| restrict:tag | yes/no | restrict activity in the area which tag defines |
| ban:tag | yes/no | ban activity in the area which tag defines |
| cares_of | user defined | What is specially what is protected in its area (birds, fish, animals, vegetation) |
Useful combinations
With name=* (the name of area), operator=* (what has the competence for declaring that area is natural protected; attention: not confusing with the propierty of the land: the land could be private but be natural protected area), access=* (specially if motor vehicles has access to it)
Examples
For example, in Spain we have an ANEI (Natural Area of Special Interest) in which we could not make fire and the Public Administration does not allow to make buildings. (see wikipedia (catalan) and wikipedia (english)) We tag as
- natural_protection=yes
- type=ANEI
- ban:fire=yes
- ban:building=yes
For the other, hand in European Union, we have ZEPA. We tag it as:
- natural_protection=yes
- type=ZEPA
- cares_of=birds
- ban:hunting:birds=yes
Predefined Allow/Restricts/Ban tags
We could have usually predefined tags. I think for example in these:
| Tag | Value | Mean |
|---|---|---|
| allow/restrict/ban:fire | yes/no | allow, restrict or ban making fire in the area |
| allow/restrict/ban:fishing | yes/no | allow, restrict or ban fishing (useful for marine reserve) |
| allow/restrict/ban:diving | yes/no | allow, restrict or ban diving (useful for marine reserve) |
| allow/restrict/ban:hunting | yes/no | allow, restrict or ban hunting animals |
| allow/restrict/ban:camping | yes/no | allow, restrict or ban to go camping |
| allow/restrict/ban:building | yes/no | allow, restrict or ban make buildings |
Comments
- I think this proposal is more general than yours and is sufficiently flexible for tagging the several types of natural protected areas. Please, comments allow. ;-)--Xan 08:39, 28 August 2010 (BST)
- Perhaps it could be complement the boundary_protected_tag--Xan 08:45, 28 August 2010 (BST)
"boundary=protected_area" is there already
There's already Tag:boundary=protected_area which uses IUCN Protected Areas Categories System. I don't know much about the subject but it seems to be more completely.
- Yes. I know. But many governments does not follow this standard I think and they get new "protected areas". Perhaps it's a complement of that--Xan 17:57, 28 August 2010 (BST)
Duplicates existing tag
The conservation=* (see Proposed features/conservation was proposed back in 2009 by Timbl (you may have heard of him), and as far as I see this key has a substantial overlap with what was suggested back then. SK53 (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)